A critical look at Connectivism as a learning theory
Connectivism is a term coined by George Siemens and Steven Downes. In his 2005 article Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation Siemens presents Connectivism as a contemporary learning theory which addresses the changing learning environment created by 21st century technologies. Connectivism departs from existing learning theories in that it emphasizes the power of networking, facilitated by interactive technologies, for learning.
Steven Downes on "What is Connectivism?"
What is learning?
Before we begin to define what the connectivism learning theory is, we first must establish the foundation of what is considered to be learning. Following that, we must define what constitutes a learning theory.
Learning - path or destination?
Websters Online Dictionary defines learning as as act or experience, or a knowledge or skill acquired through instruction or study. Jeff Cobb on his website Mission To Learn defines learning as "the lifelong process of transforming information and experience into knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes." Cobbs definition is very similar to Websters Online Dictionary. Cobb has a lot more to say in his blog which we may explore later. Finally though, Mark Smith in an article entitled "Learning Theories" defines learning as either a product or a process. If learning is a product, then the end result or product is important and should be "recognized and seen" and therefore causes change. However, if learning is a process then change happens not because of an end result but changes are due to experiences along the way. Smith sets up his article to simply say that when it comes to studying learning theories the best approach is to look at learning theories with the view of learning being a process.
What is a learning theory?
In trying to define what learning is we are then able to move into defining what makes up a learning theory. Most definitions of learning have the common ingredients of learning being an ongoing, process of experiences. On the website Learning-Theories.com the developers have taken time to give ample attention to various learning theories. To begin with, on their definition page they define a theory as the following:
A general principle that explains or predicts facts, observations or events.
A theory is generally accepted as valid having survived repeated testing.
(emphasis added)
In summary, to have a model be classified as a learning theory it must include a process of ongoing experiences which have a factual, observable, foundation and are able to be repeated. This is true for all theories scientific or otherwise. Therefore, using this criteria, we ask the question, is connectivism a learning theory?
Is connectivism a learning theory?
In his 2006 publication Connectivism: a new learning theory Ploen Verhagen opines that Connectivism is not a learning theory, but rather a pedagogy, since it deals with the reasons for and content of learning, rather than explains how learning takes place.
A theory should explain phenomena and those explanations should be verifiable. The
information presented [here] is not sufficiently specific and coherent to allow any
Another critic of connectivism, Bill Kerr, points out that Siemens' work does not discuss children learning anything: any human element, anecdotal evidence or experiments are lacking. There is no evident observable foundation, which is one of the characteristics of a learning theory, as stated above.
One feeling I have about George [Siemens]'s writing [ ...] is the tendency to cite lots of authors and their ideas but IMO it lacks the nitty gritty of a real practice to theory spiral. (Kerr, 2008)
The feeling that something is missing in this theory is also reflected in this blogpost , whose author prefers calling it a theory of information or knowledge management, since it describes how learning is facilitated, rather than how it occurs.
Is connectivism relevant to teaching practice? If so, how?
Yes, connectivism is relevant to teaching even though it should not be considered a learning theory. In simplest terms connectivism aids in the instruction and learning within the classroom. As one blog writer has succinctly stated, "Networks thin classroom walls". The blog writer goes on further to say that the duties of the teacher in the classroom will not be like it has been in the past. Instead the teacher will be taking on the tasks of amplifying, aggregating, facilitating, and modeling network learning. This is a difference from the traditional task of lecturing, teaching, and assessing. In the realm of network learning the teacher will most likely be the largest contributor in the learners network, but they will not be the only one due to web 2.0 technology.
Are there parts of the theory which seem confusing?
Siemens asserts that learning can reside in non-human appliances and that learning can be external. He equates the network to learning.
Most learning needs today are becoming too complex to be addressed in "our heads". We need to rely on a network of people (and increasingly, technology) to store, access, and retrieve knowledge and motivate its use. The network itself becomes the learning. (Siemens, as quoted by Kerr, 2006)
While it is readily understood that this external storage applies to data, information or knowledge (found e.g. in books, websites or acquaintances) it is unclear how one individual's learning can reside there. It seems that even in a network, learning is always based on sensory experience (e.g. skyping with a colleague), has to be processed internally to surpass mere imitation (understanding, synthesizing, integrating) and may result in a change of behavior (e.g. adopting a different teaching style). Connectivism seems to add a piece to the puzzle of learning, but not encompass all aspects of learning.
"learning today must be seen as social, knowledge distributed across a network, capacity enhanced by enlarging the network, learning/knowledge as multi-faceted and complex, incorporating technology, etc."
The issue seems for him to be the wider "network" where learning occurs. In other words, his theory is less about how individual students learn, and more about how "systems" learn. For example, it might be that the way Google presents search data is an example of a network "learning" what websites to place in what order, and presenting that to the user. However intriguing this might be -- where is the student? It seems that people are mere nodes in a wider network. Siemens may have found a way to describe how network connections develop in response to stimuli or data or environmental conditions, but he has little to say about how individual students learn in a classroom with a teacher and classmates.
Those who believe connectivism is a learning theory hold this thought because in their eyes, learning happens over a period of time and is not about the end product or present day knowledge. They also say that connectivism connects with the emotions of a learner and the better their emotions are, the greater learning occurs. What doesn't make sense in these thoughts, though, is that even though learning occurs over time, it is happening due to technological advancements. Technology is always changing. Hence the nature of learning will be changing too. George Siemens even states " By recognizing learning as a messy, nebulous, informal, chaotic process, we need to rethink how we design our instruction." Therefore, can it be said that connectivism is a learning theory when it is obvious its reliable, observable, evidence will be changing with the time? If you look at other learning theories, however old they might be, their basic foundational premises of learning have remained constant over time. Secondly if emotions are critical to learning under the connectivism theory, than can connectivism really explain learning when emotions are always different from one day to the next and vary between one person and another. Using emotions as evidence of learning is like using a object moving in circles, to measure a straight line.
Conclusion
In conclusion, connectivism is not to be considered a learning theory. Yes, even though education has expanded greatly in the 21st century due to technological advancement, and therefore has created more connections within different entities, connectivism does not fall within the guidelines of being a learning theory. Learning as defined by many and supported by our current learning theories, is identifiable by change happening in a recipient, due to experiences that are observable and able to be repeated. While connectivism seeks to justify it's status as a learning theory by saying that change happens due to different objects networking and acquiring knowledge, there remains the lack of measureable, data to show the acquisition of knowledge. In addition, there are still some parts of connectivism that are not fully explained or supported in research. Instead, connectivism is worthy to be considered as one way education is facilitated in the classroom through the use of various web 2.0 technology. Connectivism helps foster and encourage learning but it does not explain how learning occurs within dynamic human beings.
Home > Group E Workspace > Learning Activity 6-A-1
A critical look at Connectivism as a learning theory
Connectivism is a term coined by George Siemens and Steven Downes. In his 2005 article Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation Siemens presents Connectivism as a contemporary learning theory which addresses the changing learning environment created by 21st century technologies. Connectivism departs from existing learning theories in that it emphasizes the power of networking, facilitated by interactive technologies, for learning.
Steven Downes on "What is Connectivism?"
What is learning?
Before we begin to define what the connectivism learning theory is, we first must establish the foundation of what is considered to be learning. Following that, we must define what constitutes a learning theory.Websters Online Dictionary defines learning as as act or experience, or a knowledge or skill acquired through instruction or study. Jeff Cobb on his website Mission To Learn defines learning as "the lifelong process of transforming information and experience into knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes." Cobbs definition is very similar to Websters Online Dictionary. Cobb has a lot more to say in his blog which we may explore later. Finally though, Mark Smith in an article entitled "Learning Theories" defines learning as either a product or a process. If learning is a product, then the end result or product is important and should be "recognized and seen" and therefore causes change. However, if learning is a process then change happens not because of an end result but changes are due to experiences along the way. Smith sets up his article to simply say that when it comes to studying learning theories the best approach is to look at learning theories with the view of learning being a process.
What is a learning theory?
In trying to define what learning is we are then able to move into defining what makes up a learning theory. Most definitions of learning have the common ingredients of learning being an ongoing, process of experiences. On the website Learning-Theories.com the developers have taken time to give ample attention to various learning theories. To begin with, on their definition page they define a theory as the following:
- A general principle that explains or predicts facts, observations or events.
- A theory is generally accepted as valid having survived repeated testing.
(emphasis added)In summary, to have a model be classified as a learning theory it must include a process of ongoing experiences which have a factual, observable, foundation and are able to be repeated. This is true for all theories scientific or otherwise. Therefore, using this criteria, we ask the question, is connectivism a learning theory?
Is connectivism a learning theory?
In his 2006 publication Connectivism: a new learning theory Ploen Verhagen opines that Connectivism is not a learning theory, but rather a pedagogy, since it deals with the reasons for and content of learning, rather than explains how learning takes place.Another critic of connectivism, Bill Kerr, points out that Siemens' work does not discuss children learning anything: any human element, anecdotal evidence or experiments are lacking. There is no evident observable foundation, which is one of the characteristics of a learning theory, as stated above.
The feeling that something is missing in this theory is also reflected in this blogpost , whose author prefers calling it a theory of information or knowledge management, since it describes how learning is facilitated, rather than how it occurs.
Is connectivism relevant to teaching practice? If so, how?
Yes, connectivism is relevant to teaching even though it should not be considered a learning theory. In simplest terms connectivism aids in the instruction and learning within the classroom. As one blog writer has succinctly stated, "Networks thin classroom walls". The blog writer goes on further to say that the duties of the teacher in the classroom will not be like it has been in the past. Instead the teacher will be taking on the tasks of amplifying, aggregating, facilitating, and modeling network learning. This is a difference from the traditional task of lecturing, teaching, and assessing. In the realm of network learning the teacher will most likely be the largest contributor in the learners network, but they will not be the only one due to web 2.0 technology.Are there parts of the theory which seem confusing?
Siemens asserts that learning can reside in non-human appliances and that learning can be external. He equates the network to learning.- Most learning needs today are becoming too complex to be addressed in "our heads". We need to rely on a network of people (and increasingly, technology) to store, access, and retrieve knowledge and motivate its use. The network itself becomes the learning. (Siemens, as quoted by Kerr, 2006)
While it is readily understood that this external storage applies to data, information or knowledge (found e.g. in books, websites or acquaintances) it is unclear how one individual's learning can reside there. It seems that even in a network, learning is always based on sensory experience (e.g. skyping with a colleague), has to be processed internally to surpass mere imitation (understanding, synthesizing, integrating) and may result in a change of behavior (e.g. adopting a different teaching style). Connectivism seems to add a piece to the puzzle of learning, but not encompass all aspects of learning.Furthermore, as Siemens states in his blog,
"learning today must be seen as social, knowledge distributed across a network, capacity enhanced by enlarging the network, learning/knowledge as multi-faceted and complex, incorporating technology, etc."
The issue seems for him to be the wider "network" where learning occurs. In other words, his theory is less about how individual students learn, and more about how "systems" learn. For example, it might be that the way Google presents search data is an example of a network "learning" what websites to place in what order, and presenting that to the user. However intriguing this might be -- where is the student? It seems that people are mere nodes in a wider network. Siemens may have found a way to describe how network connections develop in response to stimuli or data or environmental conditions, but he has little to say about how individual students learn in a classroom with a teacher and classmates.
Those who believe connectivism is a learning theory hold this thought because in their eyes, learning happens over a period of time and is not about the end product or present day knowledge. They also say that connectivism connects with the emotions of a learner and the better their emotions are, the greater learning occurs. What doesn't make sense in these thoughts, though, is that even though learning occurs over time, it is happening due to technological advancements. Technology is always changing. Hence the nature of learning will be changing too. George Siemens even states " By recognizing learning as a messy, nebulous, informal, chaotic process, we need to rethink how we design our instruction." Therefore, can it be said that connectivism is a learning theory when it is obvious its reliable, observable, evidence will be changing with the time? If you look at other learning theories, however old they might be, their basic foundational premises of learning have remained constant over time. Secondly if emotions are critical to learning under the connectivism theory, than can connectivism really explain learning when emotions are always different from one day to the next and vary between one person and another. Using emotions as evidence of learning is like using a object moving in circles, to measure a straight line.
Conclusion
In conclusion, connectivism is not to be considered a learning theory. Yes, even though education has expanded greatly in the 21st century due to technological advancement, and therefore has created more connections within different entities, connectivism does not fall within the guidelines of being a learning theory. Learning as defined by many and supported by our current learning theories, is identifiable by change happening in a recipient, due to experiences that are observable and able to be repeated. While connectivism seeks to justify it's status as a learning theory by saying that change happens due to different objects networking and acquiring knowledge, there remains the lack of measureable, data to show the acquisition of knowledge. In addition, there are still some parts of connectivism that are not fully explained or supported in research. Instead, connectivism is worthy to be considered as one way education is facilitated in the classroom through the use of various web 2.0 technology. Connectivism helps foster and encourage learning but it does not explain how learning occurs within dynamic human beings.Photo Credits
bulldog1. (2005, July 5). Light of the path. bulldog1's photostream. Retrieved July 8, 2010 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/bulldogsrule/24897905/Works Consulted
Cobb, J. (2009, May 21). A definition of learning [weblog comment]. Retrieved from http://www.missiontolearn.com/2009/05/definition-of-learning/Downes, Steven. (2008, December 5). What is Connectivism? Retrieved July 8, 2010 from http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/688902
Kerr, Bill. (2008, June 21). Letter to George Siemens. Update. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/search/label/connectivism
Kerr, Bill. (2006, October 10). The network is not good. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/10/network-is-not-god.html
learning. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved July 7, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learning
Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, July). Definitions at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved July 7th, 2010 from http://www.learning-theories.com/definitions
Smith, M. K. (1999) 'Learning theory', the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm, Last update: September 03, 2009
Siemens, George. (2005, August 10). Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation. Retrieved July 8, 2010 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm
Siemens, George. (2006, November 12). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused?. Retrieved July 8, 2010 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
Siemens, George. (2006, November 15). Connectivism vs. Constructivism. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=71
Wikipedia. Connectivism (Learning Theory). Retrieved July 8, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism_%28learning_theory%29
Verhagen, Ploen. (2006, November 11). Connectivism: a new Learning Theory?. Connectivism a new theory.pdf
Rovy. (2005, February 2). Connectivism: Interesting, not sure it's a learning theory. Retrieved July 8, 2010 from http://www.situativity.org/archives/000141.html